Abaabil vs Material UI
Both libraries, measured the same way on the same day: each entry point bundled with its own module graph, gzipped, React treated as external. All twenty-three abaabil components together come to 7,364 B. The same set from Material UI, over the 22 it offers, comes to 117,424 B, or 16x the size.
What Material UI is
A complete implementation of Google's Material Design, with a theming engine, a very large component set and commercial add-ons such as the data grid.
Per component, gzipped
abaabil's column is its a11y tier, the one most applications should use. 22 components are directly comparable; the widest gap is badge at 119x. Material UI has no equivalent for 1 of the twenty-three (file), so those are left out rather than counted as a win.
| Component | abaabil | Material UI | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | 557 | 38,314 | 69x |
| dialog | 580 | 40,166 | 69x |
| popover | 495 | 39,854 | 81x |
| menu | 1,120 | 49,749 | 44x |
| tooltip | 459 | 44,735 | 97x |
| combobox | 1,097 | 58,612 | 53x |
| input | 501 | 58,465 | 117x |
| textarea | 506 | 58,465 | 116x |
| checkbox | 534 | 38,725 | 73x |
| radio | 444 | 39,431 | 89x |
| switch | 423 | 38,326 | 91x |
| select | 530 | 61,355 | 116x |
| slider | 705 | 37,166 | 53x |
| accordion | 364 | 40,476 | 111x |
| tabs | 786 | 43,438 | 55x |
| toolbar | 784 | 37,512 | 48x |
| breadcrumb | 335 | 38,849 | 116x |
| pagination | 689 | 39,662 | 58x |
| progress | 493 | 31,250 | 63x |
| alert | 341 | 40,450 | 119x |
| avatar | 460 | 32,142 | 70x |
| badge | 267 | 31,897 | 119x |
| all of them, one bundle | 7,364 | 117,424 | 16x |
The last row matters more than any single one above it. A library with a large shared runtime pays for it once, so the gap always narrows as you use more of it. Quoting only the widest row would be the easiest way to mislead you with real numbers.
abaabil's figures are JavaScript only, the same as every other column here, and unlike Material UI it arrives already styled. That cost is real and tracked separately rather than folded in: the whole stylesheet is 5,217 B gzipped if you import all of it. The method, and every library at once, is on the Why page.
When to choose Material UI instead
You want Material Design, or you need the breadth. MUI has components abaabil has no equivalent for and will not grow: date pickers, autocomplete with virtualisation, a data grid, a full theming system with variants. For an internal tool that needs to exist next week, that breadth is worth more than any byte count.
abaabil is twenty-three components and stops there. It has no date picker, no data grid, no virtualised list, and no plans for any of them. If the thing you need is on that list, the size comparison above is irrelevant to your decision, and you should take the library that has it.
If abaabil is the right fit
Setup is four steps and the first one is npm i abaabil. Every component has its own page with a live example at the tier you would actually import. Or read when not to use it first, which is the section written to talk you out of it.